Re: New GCC, new option required?

[Guy Harris <guy () alum mit edu>]

On Jul 13, 2011, at 7:23 AM, Bill Meier wrote:

> On 7/13/2011 8:05 AM, Jaap Keuter wrote:
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I think we need a new GCC option added to configure.in:
> >
> > AC_WIRESHARK_GCC_CFLAGS_CHECK(-Wno-unused-but-set-variable)
> >
> > This option came into existence with GCC 4.6 and is causing havoc all over.
> > I've been going through a lot of dissectors, many of which have either:
> > * unused set variables
> > * variables set for a legitimate purpose, but not used (yet)
> > * bugs
>
> I've fixes for a number of the (non-generated) dissectors and will commit them today.

Haven't you (and maybe others) been fixing the same issues already, as a result of Coverity warnings about the same 
thing?

And how many of those are

static void
dissect_whatever(...)
{

                ...

        proto_tree_add_item(tree, hf_foo, tvb, offset, len_foo, encoding);
        offset += len_foo;
        proto_tree_add_item(tree, hf_bar, tvb, offset, len_bar, encoding);
        offset += len_bar;
}

and how many of those ultimately represent dissectors that should be converted to use ptvcursors, in which case the 
"offset +=" stuff will disappear into the ptvcursor code and not get whined about by dataflow analyzers?
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev () wireshark org>
Archives:    http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request () wireshark org?subject=unsubscribe